U%p 



SPEECH 



OP 



' HON. ROGER A. PRYOR 

OF VIRGINIA, 



ON THE 



PRINCIPLES AND POLICY OF THE BLACK 
REPUBLICAN PARTY; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 29, 1859. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
1859. 



*■ J 3 



I? 



f A 



V 



•r 



b 












speech: 



Mr. PRYORsaid: 

Mr. Clerk: The member from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Grow] charges the Democracy with the re- 
sponsibility of the non-organization of Congress. 
In so far as the charge imputes blame, it is unwar- 
rantable; in so far as it implies praise, it is per- 
fectly true. If the gentleman means to assert that 
the Democracy are responsible for the non-organ- 
ization of the House on constitutional principles, 
and in the interest of the constitutional party, he 
affirms what the record distinctly contradicts; for 
to that end we have exerted our best abilities — 
unsuccessfully, however, for want of sufficient 
strength. If the gentleman intends to assert that 
the Democracy are responsible for the non-organ- 
ization of the House, by the election of a sec- 
tional Speaker, and the ascendency of a sectional 
party, we readily and cordially admit the truth 
of the declaration. Nay, we boast the fact, and 
claim a monopoly in the glory of the achieve- 
ment. Let it go to the country, then, on the 
deliberate asseveration of a Black Republican Rep- 
resentative, that the Democracy have so far pre- 
vented the success of the anti-slavery party, in a 
capital object of their nefarious enterprise. Let it 
go to the country, that, sooner than expose the 
Republic to the shame and calamity of installing 
a Black Republican Representative in a chief office 
of the Government, we, the Democracy, albeit of 
small consecptence on the score of numbers, did 
yet oppose an immovable barrier in the path of 
his promotion; and that, at last, when, despite our 
most obstinate resistance, the wrong was consum- 
mated, if it shall be consummated, we emerged 
from the struggle with honor untarnished and 
courage unsubdued. This be our praise; and the 



intended reproach of the member from Pennsyl- 
vania the country will distinguish as our highest 
title to applause. So believing, I beg to assure 
the honorable member that we are resolved to per- 
sist in our course; and that when his nominee 
assumes that chair, he will take it against the unan- 
imous protest of the Democracy of this House. 
No clamor of destitute contractors, in peril of pro- 
test, will avail to shake us in the strength of our 
purpose; for, greater than any individual wrong, 
greater than any private calamity, do we regard 
tin' wrong and the calamity of aiding Black Re- 
publicanism a single step in the consummation of 
its mischievous schemes. 

In support of the general imputation of blame 
on the Democracy for the non-organization of 
Congress, the member from Pennsylvania brings 
forward the particular statement that we are re- 
sponsible for the introduction of the slavery issue 
in this controversy. The untruth of the allega- 
tion is manifest through the vail of sophistical 
reasoning employed to conceal it. In the sense 
that he raises a wanton and indecent clamor who 
cries fire when he detects the torch of the incen- 
diary; in the sense that he is guilty of a breach of 
the peace who repels the assault of a robber — iir 
that sense, and in that sense only, are we respons- 
ible for the agitation of the slavery issue in this, 
debate. The nomination of Sherman for tin 
Speakership was, in itself, a proclamation of war, 
and gave the signal of hostilities. In presenting 
a man, who, besides his general concurrence in 
the schemes of the anti-slavery party, is obnox- 
ious to the special objection of complicity in a 
most mischievous and treasonable publication; a 
man who has indorsed a proposition to treat the 



Note. In arraigning the Norlh, the speaker intends only the dominant, anti-slavery party of the North. 



slaveholders as Pariahs, and to deny them the 
courtesies of social intercourse, and the amenities 
of human fellowship — the nomination of such a 
man, I say, to preside over the deliberations of 
this House, and to determine its Tegislation, was 
the provocative cause of the discussion which the 
member and his associates now pretend to de- 
plore. They apply the spark, and then aifect 
astonishment at the explosion. It is a way they 
have, not to recognize the relation between cause 
and effect, and, while busy in putting agencies 
into operation, to disclaim responsibility for the 
logical result. So after sowing the country broad- 
cast with their dragons '-teeth publications of vio- 
lence and sedition, they are amazed at the irrup- 
tion of armed men into Harper's Ferry. The 
country will as readily determine who are respons- 
ible for the introduction of the slavery issue in 
this controversy as who are responsible for the 
obstruction to the organization of the House. If 
you do not desire the agitation of the slavery 
question, why did you nominate a man whose 
mere candidacy is an affront to southern feeling 
and a challenge to southern resistance? If you 
did not intend to oppose an impediment to the 
organization of Congress, why attempt to saddle 
us with a Speaker, whose election we are bound 
in honor to oppose by all expedients, and to the 
last extremity ? 

But the member from Pennsylvania is disgusted 
with the clamor over the Helper publication. Very 
likely. What 

" Thief e'er felt the halter draw, 
With good opinion of the law?" 

Detected in a clandestine scheme of attack on the 
sanctity of the Constitution and the peace o/ the 
Republic, the member very naturally seeks to 
shrink from the shame of exposure, and to hush 
the voice of popular indignation. It is a vain 
attempt. I can assure him he has not heard the 
last of his connection with the Helper conspiracy. 
, We intend to blazon it until the public are familiar 
with the infamy. We intend to repeat the story 
until the country resounds with denunciation of 
, the treason. 

Above all, the member from Pennsylvania is 
i indignant at the introduction of the slavery agi- 
tation into this Hall. And this profession comes 
• from a party whose only impulse is an instinct 
, of sectional animosity, whose only object is the 
abolition of slavery; whose only employment is 
I the exasperation of incendiary issues. This, from 
a Representative who owes his own importance 
! less to superior intellect and energy of character 
than to a truculent hatred of the South, its peo- 
ple, and i ts institutions; this is the party and this 



the person who deprecate the renewal of the sla- 
very agitation. But, there is no blush on the 
brazen front of hypocrisy. 

Mr. Clerk, the declarations of the member from 
Pennsylvania are of a piece with the uniform policy 
of his party, and with the conduct of its repre- 
sentatives since the commencement of this strug- 
gle. Sir, it is not the policy of the anti-slavery 
party to provoke the South beyond endurance. 
Their strategy consists of tentative approaches 
and gradual exhaustion. They do not intend to 
flush the game too soon — to overrun the prey — to 
hazard the success of their enterprise through the 
indiscreetimpetuosity of its advocates. Consistent 
only in the inexorable pursuit of their object, they 
are unscrupulous in the employment of means, and 
pliable under the pressure of circumstances. At 
times, haughty in their port and direct in their at- 
tacks, they are again humble in their accents and 
oblique in their operations. It is an especially 
noteworthy circumstance, that wheneverthe South 
betrays symptoms of resentment under aggres- 
sion, and a perception of their purpose, this anti- 
slavery party have recourse to moderate counsels 
and protestations of innocent intention. Recent 
acts of encroachment and insult having enraged 
the South to the point of armed resistance, the 
Black Republican party are quick to renounce their 
violent policy, and to affect the most pacific pur- 
poses. Witness their call for a national conven- 
tion — an epitome of patriotism, a compendium of 
conservative principles ! So they assume 

" The livery of heaven to serve the devil in ! " 
I say, moreover, Mr. Clerk, that the horror of 
slavery agitation, affected by the honorable mem- 
ber from Pennsylvania, is in keeping with the 
conduct of his associates of the Black Republican 
party since the beginning of this controversy. To 
my mind, that conduct has not been sufficiently 
remarked upon and signalized to the country. 

Sir, we are all familiar with the principles of the 
Black Republican party. That it proposes the 
eventual extinction of slavery; that its immediate 
object is to usurp possession of the Federal Govern- 
ment, with the view of employing its power and 
patronage for the restriction and disparagement of 
slavery; that it disputes the validity of the fugitive 
slave law, nullifies its effect, and agitates fof its 
r0 p ea l — that these are the principles and purposes 
of the Black Republican party, we had thought 
was a fact of historical record and universal noto- 
riety. Nevertheless, what do we see here? Under 
the pressure of pertinent and persistent inquisition, 
and in pursuance of the policy I have already dis- 
tinguished, the Representatives of the Black Re- 
publican party on this floor, have not hesitated to 



affect an air of fidelity to the Constitution and 
conservative regard for the Union. They have an 



ties. We perfectly comprehend how it is and why 
it is they put forward the gentleman from Ohio to 



object to accomplish in the election of Speaker .with [j represent them as innocent in intention and inof- 



view to the eventual realization of their ultimate 
aim. But success is difficult and doubtful in the 
present temper of the popular mind. They have 
been pushing their encroachments with too great 
ardor of aggression. At last, the South feels the 
sting of attack and insult in her bosom; her in- 
dignation is aroused, and her energies collecting 
for immediate and effectual resistance. The fla- 
grancy of recent outrage, moreover, has shocked 
the sensibilities of no inconsiderable proportion 
of the northern people, and there is danger lest 
these gentlemen will be dragged from their places 
by the recoil of public sentiment among their own 
constituents. The exigencies of the occasion de- 
mand a new phase in the Protean policy of the 
Black Republican party; and a signal change we 
witness. The Representatives of that party here, 
renounce all their principles, repudiate all their 
pledges, disclaim all their objects, disavow all their 
connections, and appear on the stage of public 
affairs in a decent disguise of respectable patriot- 
ism. Nay , they even deny responsibility for their 
own sign-manual, and profess to repudiate prin- 
ciples in the propagation of which they were con- 
spicuously active and energetic. If their recanta- I 
tions were sincere we would congratulate them on 
their conversion. But who gives them credit for 
candor? Their motive is as transparent as their 
conduct is detestable. The mailed hand is gloved 
for the moment, and we feel the pressure of a fra- 
ternal salutation. The beast sheathes his claws, 
and we are fondled with an affectionate and in- 
nocuous caress. So when Satan contrived the 
depravation and destruction of mankind, he put 
off the panoply of his infernal state, and assumed 
the mean and lowly shape of the meanest and 
lowest reptile. So when John Brown was plotting 
murder and treason at Harper's Ferry, he appeared 
in the innocent guise of scientific research: 
* When the devil was sick, the devil a saint would be ; 
When the devil got well, the devil a saint was he." 

The victory won, and these Black Republican 
Representatives — they have given us assurance 
of the fact through the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stanton] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Grow] — will reassume their haughty airs, 
reaffirm their discarded pledges, and renew the 
work of encroachment and agitation. I tell the 
gentlemen we on this side of the House, and our 
constituents at home, understand the game in 
which they are engaged. I tell them we appre- 
ciate, for what they are worth, all their Pecksnif- 



fensive in action; how it is and why it is that — as 
he imputes to them conservative sentiments, de- 
nying even that they would invalidate the fugitive 
slave law, or molest the South in any of its rights 
—the Black Republican Representatives sit by in 
silent acquiescence; albeit, among them is the 
member from New Hampshire, [Mr. Tappan,] 
who justifies the assassination of officers engaged 
in the recovery of fugitives from labor; and the 
member from Indiana, [Mr. Kilgore,] who main- 
tains that a native negro is worthier the rights of 
citizenship than a white man of foreign birth; and 
the member from Massachusetts, [Mr. Burlin- 
game,] who is so radical, revolutionary , and rhap- 
sodical as to clamor for an " anti-slavery Consti- 
tution, an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery 
God." 

Mr. KILGORE. Will the gentleman yield to 
me for a .moment ? 

Mr. PRYOR. I may as well define my posi- 
tion here, in respect of interruption. 

Mr. KILGORE. Does the gentleman refer to 
me as the gentleman from Indiana? 
Mr. PRYOR. I did, indeed. 
Mr. KILGORE. Then the gentleman is en- 
tirely mistaken. He is no doubt misled by a 
garbled extract from a speech of mine in the con- 
stitutional convention. I know the gentleman 
would not intentionally misrepresent me. 
Mr. PRYOR. Certainly not. 
Mr. KILGORE. By reference to the correct 
report of that speech the gentleman will see that 
lie does me great injustice in making that state- 
ment. 

Mr. PRYOR. I am glad to hear the recanta- 
tion, or rather the explanation of the honorable, 
member from Indiana. I, of course, must be 
mistaken. The gentleman knows what he said, 
although I discover that I do not always remember 
what I have written in my day and generation. 
But the fact is, that a well-informed gentleman, 
conversant with the honorable gentleman's past 
career, did bring me a book which showed that the 
gentleman from Indiana did propound the very 
doctrine which I have designated. However, the 
o-entleman now stands corrected. Then he does 
not think that the native negro is worthy of the 
rights of citizenship ? 

Mr. KILGORE. In that very speech to which 
the gentleman refers, I said that I wished it to be 
distinctly understood that I was not in favor of 
extending the ri-ht of suffrage to the negroes; 



fian proprieties and Joseph Surface sentimental!- I] but that I would extend it to every foreigner who 



6 



was here the required length of time. Permit me 
to say to the gentleman that a proposition was 
submitted to that convention, to extend, by con- 
stitutional provision, the right of suffrage to the 
negroes. That proposition was voted for by but 
a single man, and he a Democrat. 

Mr. PRYOR. 1 am glad to hear it. That, 
however, does not affect the line of my argu- 
ment at all; and I repeat, that I desire Represent- 
atives on the other side of the House to be per- 
suaded that we here, and our constituents at home, 
perfectly understand their policy and ultimate 
purposes. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I am unwilling that the re- 
mark made by my honorable colleague should go 
out without some correction. The gentleman to 
whom he refers as being a Democrat was not, 
according to my estimation, a Democrat, but has 
always been recognized in Indiana as an Aboli- 
tionist. 

Mr. KILGORE. I ask my colleague if that 
gentleman was not elected as a Democrat? 
Mr. ENGLISH. That is not my recollection. 
Mr. KILGORE. That is mine, distinctly. 
Mr. ENGLISH . He has always been an Abo- 
litionist, and he belongs to the Republican party. 
[Cries of " Name ! "] His name is May. 

Mr. KILGORE. I am informed by my col- 
league [Mr. Colfax] that that gentleman was the 
regular nominee of a Democratic convention. 
Mr. COLFAX. He told me so himself. 
Mr. NIBLACK. I ask whether that gentle- 
man has ever been heard of in politics since ? 
Mr. KILGORE. That makes no difference. 
Mr. NIBLACK. Never, sir. 
Mr. PRYOR. These interruptions on imma- 
terial points are rather embarrassing: so I will 
o-o on. Let me repeat, however, with emphasis, 
to the Representatives on the other side, that we 
of the South understand the developments here. 
We understand their policy. All this is obvious 
enough. It is the artifice of ambition, working 
with the resources of hypocrisy. 1 repeat to the 
representatives of the anti-slavery party on this 
floor, that the people of the South will not be de- 
ceived by this sham demonstration, nor be dis- 
armed at the suggestion of a treacherous friend- 
ship. They are resolved to be prepared henceforth 
and forever. 

But, Mr. Clerk, despite the studied silence and 
artful concealment of the Black Republican Rep- 
resentatives, we have an occasional revelation of 
their suppressed feeling and hidden purpose. After 
all their elaborate artifice of disguise, no wand then 
we get a distinct glimpse of the " cloven foot." It 
is impossible, by any stringency of party drill, 



to impose a padlock on the mouth of some among 
their numbers. 

And here, permit me to make my acknowledg- 
ments to the honorable member from Pennsylva- 
nia, [Mr. Hickman,] for the speech which he 
delivered several days ago. Its doctrines I abom- 
inate; but its candor I must applaud. By contrast 
with the truckling and shuffling, the timidity and 
time-serving, the prevarication and dissimulation 
which have characterized the conduct of the Black 
Republican Representatives, the outspoken candor 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is indeed an 
admirable exhibition. It is a refreshing spectacle; 
it restores one 's confidence in the virtue of mankind 
— I use the word in its original sense — to hear a 
man who has the pluck and the purpose to open 
his mouth and speak the thoughts of his mind. 
Further I cannot go in compliment of the honor- 
able member's speech — I waive all consideration 
of its conceded ability— for a speech of more vin- 
dictive spirit and untenable doctrine, was never 
delivered in the American Congress. 

Sir, the honorable member has accomplished 
the work from which the great abilities of Edmund 
Burke recoiled in impotent endeavor. He has 
drawn up an indictment against a " whole peo- 
ple;" an indictment, too, bristling at every point 
with counts and criminations. He has exhibited 
articles of impeachment against the entire South. 
He has arraigned the South upon the most hein- 
ous accusation. He charged us explicitly and sol- 
emnly, on his responsibility as a Representative, 
with the violation of all compacts, compromises, and 
covenants. He stigmatizes us as a perfidious race, 
as a people of Punic faith, as a community with- 
out the fidelity to engagements which constitutes 
the tie of all social confederacy. Nay, to impart 
sting and poignancy to the accusation, he coupled 
it with the aggravating imputation of ingratitude. 
Yes, sir, he asserted distinctly that all these cov- 
enants, which we are charged with breaking, were 
made for our benefit; not perceiving the limp in 
his logic, the contradiction in the statement, that 
we had violated engagements which operate to our 
: advantage. Perhaps, sir, he intended to imply 
' that the people of the South are fools as well as 
knaves; otherwise, I cannot see how he expects 
! credit for the assertion that they themselves have 
I loosened the bond of covenants which were all for 
their own benefit. Nor is that all. There is this 
t additional and incomprehensible absurdity in the 
I gentleman's argument: he represents the North 
I as complaining of the infraction of engagements 
| which operated to its disadvantage and disparage- 
i ment. It will puzzle the gentleman's ingenuity 
i to explain why the South should be faithless to 



favorable compacts, and why the North should 
urge as a grievance that they are relieved from 
onerous restrictions. This is one of the dilemmas 
into which malignity is so apt to betray its vic- 
tims. 

But, sir, I contest the gentleman's argument in 
both of its propositions. I deny that all the com- 
pacts and compromises of the Constitution are for 
the benefit of the South; and I deny that she is 
guilty of any, the least, violation of her cove- 
nants. 

In the first place, it is not true that the South 
realized any enlargement of right by the so-called 
compromises of the Constitution. It is not true 
generally, for the reason that when the States of 
the South assented to the Constitution and entered 
the Confederacy, they were independent nation- 
alities, and as such were invested with all the 
rights of sovereignty. Their power was com- 
plete, and any modification of that power oper- 
ated as a restriction and derogation. The only 
acquisition of right and power which they could 
have gained, arose out of the relations which they 
contracted with other members of the Confeder- 
acy. What that acquisition was will be exhib- 
ited in the sequel. 

Again, sir, it is equally untrue in fact as false 
in philosophy, that the States of the South are 
exclusively the beneficiaries of the compacts of 
the Constitution. Examine those compromises 
as they are enumerated by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. 

First, is the partial representation of our slave 
population. Evidently here is a concession of 
right and a deduction of power on the part of the 
South. The States of the South, before entering 
the Confederacy, had a right to insist that their 
weight in the popular branch of the Federal Con- 
gress should be proportioned to their entire negro 
population; instead of which, they agreed to sub- 
tract tu-o fifths from this basis of representation. 
Here was a clear and important concession from 
the South, at the instance and for the advantage 
of the North. If they had demanded the enumera- 
tion of all their slaves in the ratio of representa- 
tion, as they had a right to do, their strength on 
this floor to-day would be increased by the addi- 
tion of sixteen members, and we would not be 
embarrassed now by the possibility of a Black 
Republican Speaker. 

So, sir, with the slave trade, which the South 
had a right to perpetuate, but to the suppression 
of which, after a given period, she consented, in i 
the interest of the Confederacy. This, too, was 
a signal concession by the South. 

The gentleman adduces, and properly, too, the 



constitutional stipulation for the rendition of 
fugitive slaves as an advantage which the South 
gains in the Confederacy. It is true, sir, if the 
southern States maintained their original independ- 
ence, they would have no right to reclaim their 
slaves from the jurisdiction of foreign Powers. 
But, sir, apart from the "nullity of this provision, 
considerby whataconcession the South purchased 
the poor equivalent. By resigning the privili gi 
of levying tonnage and impost duties, and trans- 
ferring to the Federal Government all control over 
the foreign and inter-State commerce of the Con- 
federacy, they placed their trade at the mercy i I 
antagonist interests in the North; and most effect- 
ually have the North availed themselves of the 
power for the aggrandizement of their manufac- 
turing and commercial interests, at the expense cf 
the producing interests of the South/ They have 
plucked us with merciless and insatiable exac- 
tions. 

Thus, sir, it appears that in all the instance? 
enumerated by the honorable member from Penn- 
sylvania, the South, in effect, has lost rather than 
°-ained by the compromises of the Constitution. 

I come, now, to the other proposition of the 
o-entleman's argument; to the burden of his in- 
dictment; to the point of his invective against 
the South; to the declaration that the South has 
been faithless to "all compacts, compromises, 
and covenants." Among the compromises of the 
Constitution, which one has the South violated? 
The honorable gentleman did not allege that wc 
had broken any except the engagement for tin 
suppression of the slave trade. Is this a jus? 
accusation? I confidently affirm it is not. Ex- 
ceptional instances of lawlessness do not impugn 
the character of a community. As a body, the 
people of the South are in no way concerned in the 
violation of the law against the slave trade. They 
are not more guilty of the crime than the people 
of the North. In fact, and notoriously, it is in 
northern ships, by northern men, and for the ag- 
grandizement of northern capital, that the slave- 
trade is prosecuted in defiance of legal prohibition 
These assertions I defy the gentleman to contra- 
dict. 

Well, sir, how stands the South in respect vi 
that other class of compromises— I mean the com- 
promises of legislation ? Here let me protest that 
I have no reverence for this sort of compromise 
I cannot comprehend the meaning of a legisla- 
tive compact. It is an idea that eludes analysis 
No one enactment of the Federal Legislature hi>s 
more sanctity and stability than another. AH 
laws rest upon their approved policy; and they 
are liable to repeal the moment their dperatiori 



8 



becomes mischievous. It is ausurpation of power, 
and an act of folly, for one Congress to undertake 
to protect its legislation from amendment by a 
succeeding Congress. 

Still, I will follow the gentleman, step by step, 
m his indictment. I will take up specification 
after specification, and exhibit, beyond question, 
that the South is innocent of any infraction even 
of these legislative compromises. More than that; 
1 will retaliate the charge. I will make the North 
plead to an indictment, and will prove that it is 
the anti-slavery party which has violated "all com- 
pacts, compromises, and covenants." 

The honorable member accuses the South of 
an infraction of the Missouri compromise. The 
facts show that the South adhered to it, but the 
North repudiated it. He declared, explicitly and 
emphatically, that the South had infracted and 
violated the Missouri compromise. Sir, I hurl 
back the accusation, and tell him that it was not 
the South, but the North, the North entirely and 
exclusively, with his aid and his approbation, 
that violated this legislative compromise of 1820. 

Mr. HICKMAN. I do not wish to interrupt 
the gentleman further than to correct a slight mis- 
take into which he has fallen. He supposes that 
the repeal of the Missouri compromise was passed 
with my sanction and consent. 

Mr. PRYOR. Not at all. I will come to that 
point. If the honorable gentleman will let me 
develop my idea, he will find that I am not far 
out after all. 

Mr. HICKMAN. I beg the gentleman's par- 
don. I will say this, in order to put that matter 
at rest: I was opposed to the repeal of the Mis- 
souri line, and to the legislation of 1854. I have 
stated upon this floor, on more than one occasion, 
that if I had been a member of this body at the 
time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
i would have voted against it, as I foresaw that 
it would be pregnant of mischief. 

Mr. PRYOR. I say, sir, notwithstanding, that 
it was the gentleman's constituents, that it was 
the anti-slavery party of the North, the party 
outside of the Democracy, who violated this com- 
promise of 1820, which is now so sacred in the 
contemplation of the honorable member and his 
associates. Howdidtheyviolate.it? Why, sir, 
the South, with that funic faith which is char- 
acteristic of them, insisted, after the compromise 
of 1820 was enacted, that it should be extended 
.ynd perpetuated. We so insisted in the case of 
Oregon, in the case of the organization of govern- 
ments for the Territory acquired from Mexico, 
and in the case of the adjustment of the disputed 
boundary between Texas and New Mexico — three 



instances wherein the South, with the loyalty and 
chivalric regard for honor, which, if not peculiar 
to her, is certainly characteristic of her, did pro- 
pose to insist upon the prolongation and perpet- 
uation of the Missouri line of 36° 30'. What did 
the North, this very party now clamorous for the 
Missouri compromise ? They, upon those three 
several occasions, did infract it, did violate it, did 
refuse to perpetuate it. Afterward, the South, 
finding that these gentlemen of irreproachable 
and immaculate honor employed that compromise 
merely for their own aggrandizement and our 
oppression, finding that when it was to their 
advantage they adhered to it, and when to their 
disadvantage they nullified it; the South, I say, 
finding these things, and considering, meanwhile, 
that the compromise was unconstitutional — un- 
constitutional in that it proposed an arbitrary 
exclusion against the States of the South — then 
declared that inasmuch as the North will not keep 
their faith, as they will not observe the compact, 
the Government should revert to the principles of 
the Constitution. 

With a singular and unaccountable inaptitude, 
the honorable gentleman adduces the tariff com- 
promise of 1832 as another instance of bad faith 
on the part of the South. This statement, sir, is 
the exact reverse of historical truth. The com- 
promise of 1832, with a view to appeasing the dis- 
content of the South under an intolerable burden 
of iniquitous taxation — a discontent particularly 
developed in the gallant Palmetto State — stipu- 
lated that the duties should undergo a gradual re- 
duction until they reached a revenue level, where 
they should remain. Nevertheless, this process 
of amelioration was arrested, and, instead, a most 
grievous and outrageous weight of taxation im- 
posed upon the South at the very moment when 
she was promised relief from the oppression — im- 
posed in the enactment of the bill of abominations 
by the very North which now complains of bad 
faith — imposed for the advantage of the very 
Pennsylvania which the gentleman partially rep- 
resents. This is another instance of southern 
perfidy ! 

I am conscious of treading on delicate ground 
in reverting to the compromise of 1850; but here, 
too, I affirm, the gentleman urges an unjust accu- 
sation. The truth is, that, objectionable in many 
features as that measure was to the South, the South 
yet adhered to its principle, and proposed to in- 
corporate it in the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854. 
This suggestion the North resisted; but the South 
was firm, and, aided by a number of faithful north- 
ern Democrats, succeeded in securing an explicit 
recognition and reaffirmation of the principle and 



9 



policy of the compromise of 1850. This is another 
example of southern perfidy ! 

1 come now to the Kansas compromise of 1854, 
as the honorable gentleman describes it, a reference 
which I feel to be delicate and embarrassing. In 
respect of this measure I give my opinion that 
neither the northern or southern Democracy are 
guilty of an intentional violation of engagement. 

The truth is, that the Kansas-Nebraska bill was 
susceptible of a various reading. Obvious enough 
on its face, like a palimpsest, it contained matter 
of grave import beneath the surface. We of the 
South said the principle of the bill was, that the 
people of a Territory might determine the ques- 
tion of slavery in the exercise of State sovereignty, 
and in the act of organizing a State government. 
Others maintain that the principle of the bill rec- 
ognized the right of the people, by an act<of terri- 
torial legislation, to determine the question of sla- 
very. It is a palpable , important , and, I apprehend, 
irreparable, difference of construction. However, 
since, for our interpretation, we have the author- 
ity of the highest judicial tribunal, there is reason 
to hope it may eventually prevail. But, be that 
as it may, I protest against the assumption that 
an opinion on territorial power shall be made a test 
of political fidelity. I can understand how the 
enemies of the Democracy may employ and ag- 
gravate the issue as a wedge to rend asunder the 
unity of our party; but I cannot comprehend how 
any Democrat can assist in the suicidal operation. 
In all political organizations there must be some 
open questions. It is impossible to enforce an 
exact conformity of opinion upon every subject of 
speculation. The policy of the Democratic party 
has been to tolerate a difference of opinion in this 
matter of territorial power. 

The appointment of General Cass, the recog- 
nized author of the squatter-sovereignty dogma, 
to the chief place in the present Democratic Ad- 
ministration, provoked no complaint or remon- 
strance from the Democracy of the South. I am 
for adhering to this judicious policy — this " sal- 
utary neglect." I persist in my own opinion; I 
will battle for its recognition by the. Government; 
but I will not be so much the bigot as to sacrifice 
my friends, my party, and my country, to the idol 
of my peculiar speculations. In the story of the 
lastsiege and capitulation of Constantinople, there 
are many mortifying illustrations of human de- 
pravity; but no circumstance of that frightful 
episode so shocks the sensibilities and abases our 
pride as the pertinacious altercations of the degen- 
erate Greeks, over frivolous issues, in the very 
agony of the struggle, and while the barbarian 
hosts were thundering at the gates of the city. It 



was the infatuation of a race smitten with the Ven- 
geance of Heaven. But one national party inter- 
poses between the Capitol and the triumph of sec- 
tional encroachment; and shall the Democracy, 
in presence of the enemy, and with such mighty 
issues in suspense, paralyze their strength by furi- 
ous contests over inferior and irrelevant issues ? 
If they do, then will expire the last hope of the 
Union. 

No, sir; however I differ from the Democracy 
of the North on this or thatdogma, I have for them 
no word of taunt or reproach ; but many words of 
tolerance and fraternal friendship, rather. When I 
recount their past exploits; when I recall the many 
signal instancies of their valor and devotion; when 
I see them bravely bear up against the pressure 
of adverse influences, and emerge unscathed from 
the fiery furnace of fanatical persecution, or fall 
heroically, a Spartan band in the Thermopylae of 
the Union, swept down by the assaults of resist- 
less numbers; when I witness their fidelity on 
this floor, and in this struggle; when, in my own 
feeble endeavors to uphold the rights of the South 
and the supremacy of the Constitution, I feel the 
support of their generous arms, and am cheered by 
the sound of their fraternal voice; when I recall 
and observe these things, and still hear the De- 
mocracy of the North reproached by Represent- 
atives from the South, I am impelled to exclaim, 
with the indignant Roman: 

" Be gone: 

Run to your houses ; fall upon your knees ; 
Pray to the gods to intermit the plague 
That needs most fall on this ingratitude." 

So, Mr. Clerk, the South is acquitted, trium- 
phantly acquitted, of the grievous charge pre- 
ferred by the member from Pennsylvania. She 
has not violated her engagements. She has ben 
loyal to her word. She has redeemed to the full 
every obligation she assumed by adhesion to the 
Confederacy. 

But, sir, how stands the North in this respect? 
Have the party in whose name the gentleman 
speaks, exhibited that scrupulous good faith im- 
plied in his pretension to arraign other people r 
I say they have not. I repeat his own words, 
with a retaliatory application, and charge the 
dominant party in the North with a persistent 
violation of all faith, "all compacts, compromises, 
1 and covenants.*' This is no light accusation, ut- 
tered from an impulse of splenetic humor. It is 
a grave indictment, for the proof of which I have 
the unimpeachable testimony of history. We 
have already seen that it was the North which 
violated the legislative compromisesof 1820,1832, 
and 1850. So, but in a still more conspicuous 



10 



manner, has the North repudiated and trampled 
upon the sacred compromises of the Constitution. 

It was an implied compromise of the Consti- 
tution that the South should be guarantied the 
rights which she enjoyed at the time of joining 
the Confederacy. Nevertheless we have seen the 
North availing itself of its superior numbers to I 
extort from the South a surrender of the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia. 

It was an implied compact of the Constitution , 
that the people of the South should possess the 
peace and privilege of fellow-citizenship with 
their confederates in the Union; nevertheless, they 
are harassed by every species of obloquy and per- 
secution from those who had engaged to accord 
them every sympathy and succor. 

It was an implied compact of the Constitution 
— the compact indeed which is the vital principle 
of the Constitution — that the States of the South 
should enjoy equal rights and an equal dignity in 
the Confederacy; nevertheless, the majority party 
in the North and on this floor proclaim their pur- 
pose to deny the South any participation in the i 
common domain, and to degrade it to the condi- 
tion of a provincial dependency. 

It is an express, solemn stipulation of the con- 
stitutional compact, that fugitive slaves should be 
returned to their masters. How does the North 
redeem this obligation ? For answer, I need only 
advert to the persistent attempts of the anti-slavery 
party to compel the repeal of the statute; to their 
open nullification of the law in eleven of the north- 
ern States; to their violent resistance of its execu- 
tion; to the patent and significant fact that, in con- 
sequence of the nullity of the law for the rendition 
of fugitives from labor, slavery is practically abol- 
ished on the northern frontier of the southern 
States. 

Above all, as avowed in the preamble to the 
Constitution, the Confederacy was formed to "es- 
tablish justice and insure domestic tranquillity;" 
and yet we of the South are pillaged by compa- 
triots, while fellow-citizens incite our slaves to 
insurrection ! Thus it is, sir, that the North has 
made manifest its reverence for compacts; thus it 
is, sir, that the North has redeemed its pledges 
under the Constitution. Hereafter, let no north- 
ern Representative reproach the South with infi- 
delity to engagements. 

In fact, the entire history of this sectional strug- 
gle exhibits the South in a uniform attitude of 
defense; and exhibits the North pursuing an in- 
variable policy of insult and encroachment. No 
man will dare deny this statement. The most 
adventurous and unscrupulous Representative on 
the other side, will not undertake to adduce a sin- 



gle instance wherein the South has impaired the 
interests, or trampled on the rights of the non- 
slaveholding States. Indeed, the honorable mem- 
ber from Pennsylvania [Mr. Hickman] admits 
the fact, by the declaration that if freed from the 
Confederacy the North would not again subscribe 
the Constitution. 

Mr. HICKMAN. The gentleman is mistaken 
in this. I said that the present temper and feel- 
ing which prevailed both at the North and the 
South at this time, would prevent a compact from 
being entered into such as was entered into by our 
fathers. 

Mr. PRYOR. I think that is substantially 
what I alleged, that the North would not adopt 
the Constitution to-day, if it were to be done over 
again. 

Mr. HICKMAN I said that both sides would 
reject it. 

Mr. PRYOR. Certainly, both sides; but for 
different reasons. The North, because it feels 
the compact of confederacy as a restraint on its 
aggressive purposes; while the South occupies 
a position of passive protest against attack. Sir, 
I may tell the gentleman that if the thing were to 
be done again, the South, too, would refuse to 
accept the Constitution, not because of dissatis- 
faction with its principles and provisions, but for 
the reason that no faith is to be reposed in her 
northern confederates. To this sad conviction we 
are driven by long years of endurance under an 
increasing burden of obloquy and aggression. 

Mr. Clerk, in another particular the honorable 
member from Pennsylvania was conspicuously 
frank and explicit in avowing the principles and 
purposes of the dominant party in the North. 1 
allude to his proclamation of the "irrepressible 
conflict." When we consider that the honorable 
member docs not belong to the Black Republican 
party; that he recoils from the ne plus ultra of 
their sectional schemes; that he professes to be a 
moderate man, conservative of the Constitution 
and the Union — I say, when we consider these 
things, and yet hear him declare the doctrine of 
the " irrepressible conflict," we may readily un- 
derstand to what extremes of agitation and en- 
croachment the avowed advocates of anti-slavery 
propose to push their policy. If this is the 
"tender mercy" of the member from Pennsyl- 
vania, how great must be the cruelty of the Re- 
publican nominee for Speaker. 

Mr. Clerk, this theory of the "irrepressible 
conflict" is a very simple proposition, easily sus- 
ceptible of analysis and intelligible exposition. 
As propounded by its author, Mr. Seward, it 
means that an original, inherent, and irreparable 



11 



antagonism exists between the two sections of 
the Confederacy; that negro slavery is repugnant 
to the principles of civil liberty; that it is an ob- 
struction to the success of republican government; 
that the Union, like the womb of Rebecca, is torn 
by two associate but irreconcilable elements — is 
rent by the struggles of Ormuzd and Ahriman, 
the beneficent spirit of good, and the malignant 
spirit of evil; that this controversy is inevita- 
ble and incurable, and must go on with increas- 
ing fury until one or the other principle be van- 
quished and exterminated. From the vantage 
ground of this deduction, Mr. Seward infers an 
imperative obligation on the people of the North 
to make war upon slavery — the evil spirit which 
saps the strength and mars the fair proportions 



For good and sufficient reasons I cannot accept it 
as satisfactory, or as giving assurance that the 
South should not resist the Presidency of Wil- 
liam H Seward. 

The sincerity of Seward in his sectional prin- 
ciples has been put to the test of actual experi- 
ment. When Governor of New York, and so 
sworn to support the Federal Constitution, he 
refused, on the demand of Virginia, to execute 
the fugitive slave law. But, if he had the disposi- 
tion, he would want the power to administer the 
Government in the spirit of the Constitution. I do 
not say in accordance with its forms; for history 
proves, by many signal examples, from Augus- 
tus Ca;sar, who employed a servile senate to con- 
solidate his despotism, to Baltimore, where the 



of the Republic; to make the war and to prosecute j ceremonies of popular election are perverted to the 
the war until slavery be swept from the soil of j suppression of the liberties of the people — all his- 



the South. This is the evangel of the " irrepress- 
ible conflict" as proclaimed by its great apostle. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. Do I understand the gen- 
tleman to say that William H. Seward is the 
author and originator of the irrepressible conflict 
doctrine ? 

Mr. PRYOR. I will come to that directly. 

Sir, I am not unmindful of the apology for Sen- 
ator Seward, offered some time ago by the elo- 
quent member from Ohio, [Mr. Corwin.] It was 
obviously an attempt to prepare the popular mind 
of the country, and of the South especially, for 
submission to the Presidency of William H. 
Seward; and, as such, demands a passing criti- 
cism. Sir, candor requires of me to say that the 
honorable member's apology was more ingenious 
than satisfactory. What was it? Simply this: 
that whatever Mr. Seward's present principles, 
they are mere "speculative opinions" — I quote 
the words — which he will not carry into the ad- 
ministration of the Government; that despite his 
ultraism now, he will be a conservative President. 
If this apology be good for anything, it acquits 
Mr. Seward of the charge of political heresy by 
convicting him of the basest personal villainy. It 
is equivalent to saying that Mr. Seward is play- 
ing a part of criminal hypocrisy; that he is in- 
flaming the anti-slavery agitation from no motive 
of philanthropy, but for a political purpose only; 
that all the earnestness and intensity of purpose 
which he now affects, is merely the mask of an 
unscrupulous demagogue; that when he mounts 
to the summit of his ambition, he will kick Sway 
the ladder which assisted his elevation; and, like 
Henry IV., of France, repudiate in power the 
faith he professed in opposition. If the friends 
of Mr. Seward are content with this apology, 
they make small account of personal integrity. 



tory proves how easily the forms of civil liberty 
may be reconciled with the substance of practical 
oppression. This I do affirm, that if William 
H. Seward should be elected to the Presidency, 
he will be altogether unable to resist the pressure 
of fanatical influence impelling him to war upon 
the rights and institutions of the South. He will 
discover that he hasevoked a spirit which he can- 
not allay; that he has roused a storm which he 
cannot control; that he has kindled a conflagra- 
tion which he cannot extinguish; that, like the 
unhappy Frankenstein, his diabolical arts and in- 
cantations have called into being a monster who 
mocks his authority and defies his power. 

The member from Ohio deduced a pleasing 
augury of Seward's Presidency from the recol- 
lection of Fillmore's administration; but, conced- 
ing the sincerity of Mr. Fillmore's recantation of 
Abolitionism, I discern another and adequate ex- 
planation of his conservative course in office. Sir, 
he was impotent for evil. If his purposes were 
sectional, he could not carry them into execution. 
He had no alternative but to act the patriot Pres- 
ident, since he was under the supervision and 
control of a Democratic Congress. The case will 
be altogether different with Seward. If he comes 
into office, he will come upon the crest of an in- 
surgent popular fanaticism, whieh will brook no 
resistance to its will or denial of its demands. In 
vain did Xerxes attempt to fetter the billows of 
the stormy Dardanelles; in vain did Canute forbid 
the tide to encroach upon his royal presence. Just 
as impotent would be the attempt of Seward to 
still the rage of the anti-slavery fanaticism and to 
chastise its fury into a decent subordination to 
the restraints of the Constitution. If he essay 
a retrograde step, he will cealize the fate of Mira- 
beau. If'he fail even to keep pace with the move- 



12 



ment of his party, he will experience the doom 
Of Danton. He will be confronted with no oppo- 
sition in this Capitol; but a Senate of janissaries 
and a Prastorian band of Representatives will at 
once dictate his policy and act the obedient instru- 
ments of his will. He will redeem his threat to 
"reorganize the judiciary," and then no solitary 
barrier will stand between him and absolute em- 
pire. 

This may all be true, exclaims the honorable 
member from Pennsylvania, and yet the southern 
States shall not take refuge in disunion from the 
yoke of oppression. 

Mr. HICKMAN. I wish now, sir, once for. 
all, to put myself right. I shall take the oppor- 
tunity, at no distant day, to treat that matter with 
some particularity; but I wish now merely to say, 
that I do not maintain what I am told is the doc- 
trine of William H. Seward, that one section of j 
this Union is to extinguish the other. I mean to \ 
assert, sir, just exactly what I have heretofore j 
declared, that the North are resolute and fixed in 
their purpose not to allow a dissolution of this | 
Union. I do not care what the antagonism may 
be between the sections, the Union must and shall 
be preserved. 

Mr. PRYOR. The gentleman tells us, that if 
we attempt it, we will be coerced into submis- 
sion — a purpose for which eighteen million, as 
against eight million people, is abundantly ade- 
quate. I remember how the extravagance of this 
boast surprised the conscious heroism of Black 
Republican Representatives into an involuntary 
outburst of self-applause ! Sir, I will not retort by 
defiance; I will not retaliate the menace. It would 
be undignified; it would be indecent. For answer, 
I have only to give the gentleman assurance that 
the southern States do not now intend to abandon 
the Union, whatever ultimate recourse events may 
impose upon them. It is the last resource of op- 
pressed and humiliated nationalities, like the Israel- 
ites of old, to gather up their household gods and 
wander in quest of some new home and some hap- 
pier destiny. The people of the South are of a dif- 
ferent spirit, and of another purpose. They are 
resolved, in the first instance, to vindicate their 
rights in the Union, peaceably if possible, by force 
if necessary. The Constitution and the Confed- 
eracy are the work of their fathers' hands; and 
they do not mean to give up the inheritance, with 
all its glorious traditions and inspiring memories. 
They do not intend to lose the prestige of legitimacy ; 
to throw away the power of the Federal Govern- 
ment; to act as if they were not the regular and 
orderly interest in the Confederacy. On the con- 
trary, they will vindicate the principles of the Con- 



stitution and the integrity of the Union against the 
sectional and treasonable schemes of the anti-sla- 
very party. They will scourge and expel the evil 
spirits which infest the holy temple; and in this 
sacred service they expect the assistance of mil- 
lions of true and valiant men in the North. The 
proportion will be reversed; and, instead of his 
eighteen million, the honorable member and his 
party, reduced to an insignificant band of traitors, 
will be crushed between the conjoint efforts of 
patriots in the South and patriots in the North. 

Abominable, Mr. Clerk, as this doctrine of 
the " irrepressible conflict" is in its principle and 
consequences, an honorable member from Illinois 
[Mr. Faensworth] imputes its authorship to a 
southern writer — the individual who now ad- 
dresses you. The leader of the Black Republi- 
can party is singu arly unfortunate in his apolo- 
gists. By one, he is impeached of perfidy; by 
another, of a flagrant plagiarism. Again I come 
to his rescue, and restore his credit for originality, 
by adverting to the fact that he promulgated the 
theory of the " irrepressible conflict" as early as 
1848 — eight years in advance of the article in the 
Richmond Enquirer. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. Does the gentleman re- 
i member that, in 1849, a manifesto was issued to 
the country, drawn up and prepared by John C. 
Calhoun, of South Carolina? 

Mr. PRYOR. I do. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. And signed by all the mem- 
j bers of the Virginia delegation in both Houses of 
Congress, in which this very doctrine of " irre- 
pressible conflict" was promulgated? 

Mr. PRYOR. That I deny. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. Permit me to read two 
sentences only? 

Mr. PRYOR. I should have no objection to 
; the gentleman reading the whole address, for it is 
a very good one; but I cannot yield for that pur- 
pose now. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. I will consume only a mo- 

:| ment. I will read only one or two sentences. I 

|| quote that manifesto from the second volume of 

Thomas H. Benton's Thirty Years in the United 

States Senate, page 734: 

" We, whose names are hereto annexed, address you in 
discharge of what we believe to be a solemn duty on the 
most important subject ever presented for your considera- 
tion. We allude to the conflict between the two great sec- 
tions of the Union, growing out of a difference of feeling 
and opinion in reference to the relations existing between 
the two races, the European and African, which inhabit the 
southern section, and the acts of aggression and encroach- 
ment to which it has led. The conflict commenced not long 
alter the acknowledgment of our independence, and has 
gradually increased until it has arrayed the great body of 
the North asrainst the South on this most vital subject. In 



13 



the progress of this conflict, aggression has followed aggres- 
sion and encroachment encroachment, until they have 
reached a point when a regard for peace and safety will not 
permit us to remain longer silent." 

My object in reading this is to show that to 
Mr. Seward has been given honor more than is 
due. The following are the names signed to that 
manifesto: 

" Messrs. Atchison, of .Missouri ; Hunter and Mason, of j 
Virginia ; Calhoun and Butler, of South Carolina j Downs, 
of Louisiana ; Foote and Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi ; ' 
Fitzpatrick, of Alabama ; Borland and Sebastian, of Ar- J 
kansas ; Wostcott and Yulee. of Florida ; Atkinson, Bay- 
ley, Brdinger, Bocock, Beale, W. G. Brown, Meade, K. A. 
Thompson, of Virginia ; Daniel, Venable. of North Caro- 
lina ; Burt. Holmes. Rhett, Simpson. Woodward, of South 
Carolina ; Wallace. Iverson, Lumpkin, of Georgia ; Bow- 
don, Gayle, Harris, of Alabama ; La Sere, Morse, of Louis- i 
iana ; R. W. Johnson, of Arkansas ; and Stanton, of Ken- ' 
tucky." 

I do not know that the Mr. Eocock who signed ■ 
that manifesto is the same Mr. Bocock now in I 
this House. 

Mr. PRYOR and several others. Exactly the j 
same. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. Then, can it be possible 
that gentlemen who support a resolution denoun- 
cing Mr. Sherman for signing a particular docu- 
ment, and for favoring this irrepressible-conflict 
doctrine, can vote for a gentleman who has signed, 
indorsed, and promulged the very same doctrine? 
[Great disorder and deafening cries of "Order!" 
from the Democratic benches.] 

Mr. PRYOR. I cannot allow the gentleman, 
under a false, hypocritical pretense, to inject a 
flagitious speech into mine. 

Mr. McKNIGHT. I understood the gentle- 
man to yield me the floor. 

Mr. PRYOR. For a special purpose, I yielded 
it, but you have violated that purpose. It is an- 
other violation of engagements and covenant* by 
northern Representatives. 

The gentleman is mistaken. In imputing the 
authorship of the " irrepressible conflict" to Wil- 
liam H. Seward, I did nothing more than ob- 
serve the old maxim, in giving the devil his due. 
In the sense in which he propounded it, he was 
the first to promulgate it. 

But, sir, it is untrue, in every sense untrue, that 
any man in the South ever adopted Seward's 
idea of the " irrepressible conflict." On the con- 
trary, we deny that the subordination of negro 
slavery is repugnant to the principles of civil lib- 
erty, contending, rather, that it constitutes the 
most solid and staple basis of free government, 
and is instrumental in the highest development of 
civilization. We deny that slavery is repugnant to 
the Constitution, since, in fact, the most essentia] 
principle of the Constitution — the principle of rep- 



resentation — reposes upon arecognition of slavery, 
and its most guarded guarantees are for the pro- 
tection of slavery. We deny that slavery opposes 
any impediment to the progress of the Republic, 
forasmuch as in conjunction with slavery, and 
mainly by the aid of slavery, the Republic has 
already realized the most brilliant promise of na- 
tional glory. We deny that any antagonism sub- 
sists between the social systems of the opposite 
sections. We deny that the rights of the South 
arc incompatible with the interests of the North. 
In fact, the resources of one section are exactly 
responsive to the deficiencies of the other. Our 
economy of labor, disciplined and steady and 
unfailing, is an indispensable auxiliary to the 
adventurous and educated industry of the North. 
We plant and produce; they fetch and fabricate. 
We supply the solid basis; they the decoration of 
the Corinthian capital. The ever active and tur- 
bulent spirit of free labor in the North would pre- 
cipitate the social system into anarchy, if it were 
not counteracted and controlled by the conserva- 
tive interests of slave labor in the South. 

This is my opinion of the harmonious relations 
logically existing between the two sections of the 
Confederacy. 

Nevertheless , sir, I say there is an " irrepressible 
conflict;" but it is an " irrepressible conflict" be- 
tween the provisions of the Constitution, the rights 
of the South, and the interests of the Union, on 
the one hand; and on the other the ideas and aims, 
the principles and purposes of the Black Repub- 
lican party. When we contemplate the rapid and 
uninterrupted aggrandizement of this party, rush- 
ing like the Propontis in ebbless flow, and, in its 
resistless course, sweeping away every barrier of 
right, reason, and constitutional restraint; when 
we see it satisfied by no concession, and propitiated 
by no adjustment, all the little " compromises" of 
cobbling politicians, instead of arresting the in- 
[ undation, only serving to fret the fanaticism of 
J anti-slavery into a stronger and more turbulent 
stream; when we find that the audacity of its pre- 
tensions rises with the development of its power; 
when, after demolishing the outposts of slavery, 
■ it avows its purpose to repel the South from the 
! common domain of the Confederacy, and to cm- 
', ploy the agency of the Federal Government for 
! the extermination of slavery in its stronghold; 
in the face of these facts — facts of portentous sig- 
nificance — we are forced to the conclusion that, 
between the South and the dominant party of the 
North, there does indeed rage an inevitable and 
"irrepressible" conflict. Optimists may be de- 
ceived, by the eddies along the bank, into the idea 
that the stream is running backward; but who- 



14 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



ever looks out upon the true current and volume | 
of waters will admit that the course of anti-sla- 
very is ever and increasingly onward. Action and 
reaction, flux and reflux, is the law of progress. 
As we stand upon the beach contemplating the | 
mighty movement? of ocean, we observe a regu- j 
lar repetition of refluent waves; but, for all that, : 
our little landmarks will be soon swept away by 
the aspiring sea. So with the usurpations of this 
an ti -slavery party; except we get beyond their j 
reach, they will speedily overwhelm all our rights. 

Sir, believe me, the South understands the crisis 
as I represent it, and is bracing her energies for 
the inevitable struggle. If you will not take my 
word, be admonished by more authentic and au- 
thoritative manifestations. Listen to the voice 
of the people in primary meeting; hear the rec- 
ommendations of our State Executives; recount 
the enactments of our State Legislatures — all ani- 
mated with the single spirit of resistance, and 
all contemplating the single object of prepara- 
tion — be instructed, I beseech you, by the sig- 
nificance of these ominous developments, and 
retrace your march of encroachment before the 
irrevocable die is cast. 

If this avail not for the salutary lesson, recollect 
the effect of the explosion at Harper's Perry, 
remember with what alacrity the people of Vir- 
ginia answered to the call of patriotism; with how 
quick an impulse of sympathy the shock of col- 
lision on our northern frontier vibrated throughout 
the limits of the Commonwealth, awakening a 
universal response of resentment and indignation; 
with what ardor and unanimity her gallant sons 
precipitated themselves in military array on the 
point of expected attack, ready and resolute to 
vindicate the honor of the South from the threat 
of insult or the shadow of aggression. 




011 898 346 4 



In conclusio 

i the Representa 

! it is a word of 

nal entreaty. . 

no difference of sentiment, no division of party. 

Why, then, may we not import hither, and rep- 

j resent here, some image and accent of the divine 

harmony which prevails in the bosom of the peo- 

j pie? Under the pressure of this supreme neces- 

', sity let us close up the trivial differences of party, 

and collect our energies for their most effective 

exertion; so that, whatever be the issue, we may 

accept it as well with the repose of conscious 

! strength as with the dignity of conscious right. 

i Unity is the solitary need of the South. With 

j that, panoplied in the triple armor of a just cause, 

I she may await the signal from the adversary with- 

I out a momentary misgiving of the result. Speak - 

j ing on the suggestion of the gentleman from Penn- 

I sylvania, I affirm, that eight million freemen, ed- 

I ucated to the use of arms, animated with the 

i invincible valor of a high-souled sensibility, and 

united by the ties of fraternal sympathy in the 

! defense of everything dear to the soul of honor, 

J cannot be subjugated by any combination what- 

' ever, least of all by a miscellaneous mob of crazy 

i fanatics and conscience-stricken traitors. And, 

'■ with the resources of strength which abound in 

the limits of the southern States, an imperial do- 

i] main, every diversity of climate, and every vari- 

I j ety of production — especially a monopoly of the 

j ] staples which rule the commerce of the world — 

with these incomparable advantages, it is possible, 

if need be, to organize a confederacy out of our 

own resources, and to rear a fabric of government 

which shall survive the lapse of ages, and renew 

with brighter illustration the republican glories of 

antiquity. 



-V 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 346 4 



HOLL1NGER 
pH 8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1543 



